Theory of General Minories

[simon b]

1 hour ago, Pacific231G said:

 

I sort of wonder if this explains why scenery became far more of a thing with the smaller scales. A twenty inch wide baseboard fills the visual field in a way that the same scene ten inch wide in 00 or H0  doesn't and, though I like Tom Cunnington's EM Minories (GN), which followed CJF's plan as closely as possible it doesn't work for me quite as well as Newford did. The difference of "presences" isn't though apparent in photos

 

Although I do like Minories it always looked a little off to me, I think it was that the retaining wall just overpowers everything else. A little lower, with a variety of low relief buildings on top would make a big visual change. Just my thoughts.

[Pacific231G]

 

11 minutes ago, simon b said:

Although I do like Minories it always looked a little off to me, I think it was that the retaining wall just overpowers everything else. A little lower, with a variety of low relief buildings on top would make a big visual change. Just my thoughts.

Yes, I rather agree, though I think the height of the retaining wall may have been a reflection of those on the widened lines. Perhaps something more like Bradfield Gloucester Square where the retaining wall is high but not so overpowering might have been better. 

 

[Matloughe]

11 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

It's good to see Bishop's Park again as the photos of it from the earlier years of this thread were  lost

Thanks for the kind words David, I still have have all of the photos of it - I just selected four as 'overviews' for my post. I have all of the pointwork as well so it could be re-created and 90% of the stock is still with me.

 

15 hours ago, Lacathedrale said:

That's really lovely @Matloughe - particularly the shot with the Bulleid Pacific in there. I think the cropped look works very well, and rossover aside your resistance to adding 'just a bit more' is admirable.

 

I've got quite a large Minories++ sitting in my garage which is at the moment mostly unloved - a combination of disparate coupling types, the need for DCC (and lack of funds for it), etc. all mean it's laying in quiet repose for now.

 

Maybe it is a character flaw in me - but part of me thinks I should've gone N/2mmFS (and is my knee-jerk suggestion to you). I reckon those people who denigrate 2mm and 3mm as too small while modelling in 4mm themselves have their calibration of "what is too small?" off by at least an order of magnitude - IMO if you're going to go small (i.e. >Gauge 0) then you may as well go for the smallest practical rather than a halfway compromise. 

 

This is a somewhat rambling diatribe - but to bring it back around - if you pull back and look at the wood, rather than the tree then 00 and N are effectively the same choice and occupy adjacent slots on a much wider spectrum of scratch-building, model engineering, kit building, motorised toys, etc. and personally, I reckon I'd have had no less fun or enjoyment with my layout in N than I have done in 00 in a quarter of the space. I am my own proof that RTR stock (my own justification for 4mm at the time) is not the biggest obstacle in getting a finished layout together, even if it does help in those early stages.

 

EDIT: I should add that many people in the 2mmFS world are using high quality XPS foam or foamcore with a thin ply shell to keep things from being stove in, instead of softwood/MDF - maybe a good option if your strength and mobility are more limited?

Its funny because I've been looking at 2mmFS for a possible project but haven't taken the plunge as I am still researching. I like the idea of Foamcore Boards yes, I am able to move most things now - I will get a warning in my back when I am pushing it too far and thats my signal to stop.

Yes Bishops Park (aside from the crossover) was a very vanilla interpretation of Minories - I think if I were going to do it again I would make the boards 20" or 24" wide and go for a four platform arrangement and kick-back goods shed very similar to Annie's digital model:

On 29/06/2023 at 16:17, Annie said:

The track layout of my pre-grouping era Minories.

 

The left hand side platform is used for milk cans and parcels.

 

 

 

The end with the goods shed and the long dark and spooky tunnel.

I would also potentially like to introduce a third track between the two main platforms to run-around trains by pushing back, or for stabling stock / locomotives between runs inspired by the model of Newford as well as prototypical trackplans from Victoria, which had double length platforms and a centre road to allow trains nearer the stops to escape while another train stood ahead of them further down the platform - as well as the photo taken at Brighton with a number of Stroudley D1's in the centre road awaiting their next trip.
But that is a pipe dream - I would also potentially move from BR(S) to Pre-Grouping to match the stock I am now collecting - I know it means its not a Minories any more but I think it would be beneficial additions to the basic plan.
Another more artistic suggestion I might add to my own Minories Expanded plan, would be if I didn't have the third road between the main platforms would be to raise the station building up - matching the cutting height and footbridges down the the platforms - with 3&4 slightly shorter than 1&2 so there was a circulating area. Possibly a differentitation between Mainline & Suburban services. But with Platform 1&2 looking like they continue onwards into a tunnel mouth under the station building - like at Liverpool Street (GER) with the disused connection between platforms 1&2 down the the Circle Line. I imagine the tunnel to be a blank - but it might be a good idea if the layout could be incorporated into a larger scheme opens the possibility of 'through running' through platforms 1&2.

Anyway thats enough of my ramblings. As much as I look at my boards in the garage, if I wanted to do Minories Expanded (Or even Minories) I'd want wider boards for some more scenery outside of the cutting.
Kind Regards,
Gary

 

[Annie]

1 hour ago, Matloughe said:

But with Platform 1&2 looking like they continue onwards into a tunnel mouth under the station building - like at Liverpool Street (GER) with the disused connection between platforms 1&2 down the the Circle Line. I imagine the tunnel to be a blank - but it might be a good idea if the layout could be incorporated into a larger scheme opens the possibility of 'through running' through platforms 1&2.

I did consider doing something similar to this, - and I may yet have a go at doing it.  My Minories project is at a pause at present with it being about 90% done.  The railway side of things is fully operational and with the arrival of the GER E22's i commissioned I should be busy running the wheels off everything, but with the background buildings up on the high level not completed to my satisfaction I seem to be in a bit of a fug over the whole project.

 

What couldn't be seen in my earlier screenshots is that I have crossovers at the ends of my platforms since I have the luxury of fairly long platforms.  Possibly not quite in the spirit of Minories, but it does make operating the station a lot easier.

 

 

Edited October 11, 2023 by Annie
added a picture

[Lacathedrale]

That is very, very similar to my Minories++ - including the double-slip as exit to the headshunt off the outermost platform (though in my case the very outermost track is just a carriage siding).:

 

An early shot showig the entire track arrangement

 

Up at the town end

[simes]

Almost all of us who are building a Minories choose to include a variation to personalise it, so here's mine under construction.  This looks more different to standard than it really is.  It is the standard 'with goods facilities' version, so the track closest to the front baseboard edge is a goods headshunt.  I have combined the turnouts for platform 3 and the goods line into a three way point to save space, a trick I see others have done.  The only change of substance is that I have added a branch line.  The notion is that a separate railway company wanted access to Minories station, but could only obtain shared use of platform 3.  The branch is the curved line you can see in the station throat, reaching P3 via a crossing over the goods line connection.  This gives modellers' licence for a variety of non-local rolling stock if needed.  There is a crossover connecting the branch to the goods headshunt too.  The track is laid and wired and it is very satisfying to operate.

[5BarVT]

18 hours ago, simes said:

This looks more different to standard than it really is. 

As soon as I saw the photo I was going to add a similar comment, then I read yours.

Do I spy H&M point motor cranks?  Presumably with their motors below.

Paul.

[simes]

Yes, H&M motor cranks.  Motors below as far as possible.  I need to think of imaginative ways to disguise the cranks.  Getting the track laid, wired and running reliably has come ahead of tidying the appearance!

[5BarVT]

1 hour ago, simes said:

Yes, H&M motor cranks.  Motors below as far as possible.  I need to think of imaginative ways to disguise the cranks.  Getting the track laid, wired and running reliably has come ahead of tidying the appearance!

This was my home made 1990s solution:

Flat crank desoldered, slit cut in end of operating rod, spring steel wired soldered in.

 

And in position.  Not completely hidden, but better than before!

 

Paul.

[simes]

Thank you, that's a neat idea.  It looks as if it requires the motor to be mounted so that its shaft is directly below the point?

[5BarVT]

5 minutes ago, simes said:

Thank you, that's a neat idea.  It looks as if it requires the motor to be mounted so that its shaft is directly below the point?

Yes - I found that two sleeper bays out from the tie bar gave the right operation.

Paul.

[SteveyDee68]

On 06/11/2023 at 14:23, simes said:

Almost all of us who are building a Minories choose to include a variation to personalise it, so here's mine under construction.  This looks more different to standard than it really is.  It is the standard 'with goods facilities' version, so the track closest to the front baseboard edge is a goods headshunt.  I have combined the turnouts for platform 3 and the goods line into a three way point to save space, a trick I see others have done.  The only change of substance is that I have added a branch line.  The notion is that a separate railway company wanted access to Minories station, but could only obtain shared use of platform 3.  The branch is the curved line you can see in the station throat, reaching P3 via a crossing over the goods line connection.  This gives modellers' licence for a variety of non-local rolling stock if needed.  There is a crossover connecting the branch to the goods headshunt too.  The track is laid and wired and it is very satisfying to operate.

Any chance of a track plan for your Minories+ design? Just that it is sparking some ideas for my own Minories-style adaption, where your goods head shunt would actually be my link to a train ferry! (I am imagining semi parallel moves using the crossing!)

 

Out of interest, are those all standard PECO Streamline points?

 

Steve S

Edited November 9, 2023 by SteveyDee68
Bizarre spelling mistake corrected

[simes]

You're welcome...  here is a track plan exported from AnyRail.   This shows the station and the throat.  At the right-hand end of the throat, the tracks (from top to bottom) are the up and down main, the branch, then three goods sidings.  I tried a fiddle yard beyond here but now I have running lines leading to a reverse loop.  Yes, the track is all Streamline code 100, electrofrog points (except the crossing which is code 75), 3' radius on the passenger lines and 2' radius in the goods yard.

Edited November 9, 2023 by simes

[meil]

On 07/07/2023 at 11:23, Compound2632 said:

 

No. No. No. I don't want to think about this phrase.

 

The exit passageways from Roman arenas and stadiums were called vomitoria...

And in the world of stadium design they still are!

[Lacathedrale]

On 10/10/2023 at 19:58, Pacific231G said:

 

Yes, I rather agree, though I think the height of the retaining wall may have been a reflection of those on the widened lines. Perhaps something more like Bradfield Gloucester Square where the retaining wall is high but not so overpowering might have been better. 

 

 

I have spent many happy cups of tea watching the operating session for Bradfield - and I must say that when viewed from this angle, which is never shown in video form - some of the magic is definitely absent.

 

That said, the scissors into two half slips and a double-slip is pretty breathtaking.

[Dunalastair]

On 04/08/2023 at 14:47, Nearholmer said:

Well, I paid the £1.20, and after a really annoying authentication process I got the document.

 

Well ……. It was worked as two parallel single lines, and the terminus at Blackwall was beyond, and slightly above, the haulage sheave, so the cars trundled in under momentum, and gravitated out, stopping shortly thereafter to grip the rope before the engine was started. No mention of turntables or recesses yet, but there is a lot to read, and I’m supposed to be doing gardening out the front, so maybe later.

 

Did you ever finish reading the document, or did the gardening win out? I'm tempted by the idea of a L&BR rope diorama, whether Minories or Blackwall. 

[Nearholmer]

I read all of it, and it was very well worth the £1.20, so I’d invest if I were you. After your previous models, I’d certainly look forward to one based on this.

[tom s]

Activity in this channel! I guess I can update on my plan.

Having learned about 3D printed sleepers as an alternative to jigs and soldering hand made turnouts, I am converting to 2FS before any wiring or scenics begin.

Swapping the two turnouts to a 3 way gave just enough room to add in a second layover locomotive spur, which I think adds more to the Moorgate look, if a little less clean. 3 suburban coaches and a Class 31 on both ends can still fit into the top platform with a few cm to spare.

It sort of breaks the Minories rule of no curve into opposite curves, but I am hoping B6.5 turnouts are shallow enough to avoid any unsightly snaking.

Edited January 26 by tom s

[TravisM]

My very first 'proper' model railway when I was a kid, was Hornby Dublo 3 rail, and I've recently bought a few items to relive my childhood.  I'm seriously thinking of building Minories as CJ Freezer designed it, but with the track work of the era in mind when first drawn out, do you think I can make a convincing layout, to the same size and track plan using Hornby Dublo 3 rail track?

[simon b]

On 26/01/2024 at 20:24, tom s said:

Activity in this channel! I guess I can update on my plan.

Having learned about 3D printed sleepers as an alternative to jigs and soldering hand made turnouts, I am converting to 2FS before any wiring or scenics begin.

Swapping the two turnouts to a 3 way gave just enough room to add in a second layover locomotive spur, which I think adds more to the Moorgate look, if a little less clean. 3 suburban coaches and a Class 31 on both ends can still fit into the top platform with a few cm to spare.

It sort of breaks the Minories rule of no curve into opposite curves, but I am hoping B6.5 turnouts are shallow enough to avoid any unsightly snaking.

 

I like it, if your using the 57ft coaches the swing over a reverse curve shouldn't be that bad.   

 

Or another idea... How would it affect the plan if you replaced both of the right hand points in the platform roads with y points? That would reduce the swing further and probably square up the tracks leading off the layout? 

[Lacathedrale]

2 hours ago, TravisM said:

My very first 'proper' model railway when I was a kid, was Hornby Dublo 3 rail, and I've recently bought a few items to relive my childhood.  I'm seriously thinking of building Minories as CJ Freezer designed it, but with the track work of the era in mind when first drawn out, do you think I can make a convincing layout, to the same size and track plan using Hornby Dublo 3 rail track?

 

I didn't grow up in this era, but I've heard that the running characteristics of stock of the period leave quite alot to be desired when it comes to slow speed operation. Minories came from the introduction of TT in the late 50's so Triang Series 3 or more usably Super 4 would work?

 

Nevertheless there's certainly a vibe to the plan isn't there!

 

My own Minories++ layout has stalled out completely - dozens of carriages and all my locomotives to add couplings to, half a dozen DCC decoders to buy before I can really 'play' has me in the doldrums.

 

[Nearholmer]

If you ferret about on YouTube, there is at least one very good HD Minories shown in operation.

 

HD locos are pretty decently controllable at slow-enough speeds by using a modern controller, but some of the Triang ones don’t really cut the mustard in that regard IMO. It’s surprising how when you come back to them after c50 years, their performance is nothing like as good as you remember!

[Keith Addenbrooke]

40 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

If you ferret about on YouTube, there is at least one very good HD Minories shown in operation.

 

HD locos are pretty decently controllable at slow-enough speeds by using a modern controller, but some of the Triang ones don’t really cut the mustard in that regard IMO. It’s surprising how when you come back to them after c50 years, their performance is nothing like as good as you remember!

 

Quite early on in this thread (page number in the 30's perhaps?), I believe @t-b-g posted a link to this YouTube video by Clive Bennett:

 

 

This was Part I - there is a Part II and other more recent offerings on the same channel.  I don't know Clive Bennett personally.  Keith.

 

 

[Annie]

3 hours ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

Quite early on in this thread (page number in the 30's perhaps?), I believe @t-b-g posted a link to this YouTube video by Clive Bennett:

Wonderful, - thank you for posting this YouTube video.  Gosh that takes me back.

 

I used to buy HD 3 rail carriages cheaply as poor girl's Exleys and change the wheels because nobody wanted them back then.  So much nicer than clunky thick sided plastic Triang coaches.

Edit:  I had an N2 as well that somebody had gone to a great deal of trouble to fit condenser piping made from brass rod.  I converted it to 2 rail using a set of Romford wheels, - it was a good runner too.

Searching out Part II is worth doing by the way.

Edited January 29 by Annie
more to say

[tom s]

6 hours ago, simon b said:

 

I like it, if your using the 57ft coaches the swing over a reverse curve shouldn't be that bad.   

 

Or another idea... How would it affect the plan if you replaced both of the right hand points in the platform roads with y points? That would reduce the swing further and probably square up the tracks leading off the layout? 

I think Y'ing the top one is a good idea that I will change to. The section highlighted in green becomes a very slight S, I wanted to keep the top two lines a prototypical width of about 25mm between centres in 2mm scale. Got that number from some photos of Moorgate and nearby Liverpool Street's double platform tracks. I feel like it is a 'tell' that a model is a model when the gaps between parallel tracks are too wide.
If I had maybe 6 more inches of length I could Y the point highlighted white, but to keep the centre platform the same width as Moorgate's for a decent distance, I will stick with the left hander. I did realise that if the trains will fit in the top platform, I had room to spare at the bottom road and might as well make the white highlighted point longer and switch to C blades.
I think I prefer the tracks to stay non-parallel with the board edge, hard to explain why but the aesthetics look a slight be more interesting to me. My cassette-traverser board has a 5cm distance to square off the track off-scene from the 3 degree angle the trains leave at. 
Cheers for the feedback!

Edited January 29 by tom s